Atlantic Wharf (née Russia Wharf) | Atlantic Ave | Waterfront

Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

^ you must work in that building with the cafeteria i can see when ever i walk past it... all i want to do is go in and eat at one of the fancy food places, but alas, it is always the weekend.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

That building is the old Stone & Webster building, which is now a Fidelity building. I should have a badge soon, so I can go eat on the ground level whenever I want.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

This building is hard to spot. Couldn't see it coming in from cambridge on Rt 2, couldn't see it coming across the Charles on the T, and couldn't see it from the north end section of the greenway. I was dissapointed, wanted to see it in a near complete [in terms of the exterior] state for the first time.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

thursday on the way to the airport off to Florida!
207-1.jpg
208-2.jpg
209-2.jpg
210-2.jpg
212-2.jpg
214-1.jpg
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

You know what?
I like this "BB" tower!

P.S.
BB = Boston Boring
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

anyone know why they just stopped working on this thing out of nowhere?
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Because you can't see the work they are doing on the inside.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

today
243.jpg
244-1.jpg
246.jpg
254-1.jpg
255.jpg
254-1.jpg
256-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Great building. Even the details I disagree with add vitality and interest.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

^ I feel the opposite.

IMO, Atlantic Wharf is of the worst buildings in the last decades, with more cheap adornments (i.e. facadectomy base, spire with LED colored lighting, white grid, angled mechanical housing, etc. etc. etc.) than the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland. Symbolic of mediocrity resounding from the halls of the BRA to the Boston Civic Design Commission. The building even does a good job reminding us that it was dropped on top of the wrong site.

I'm still waiting for the 1st floor and outdoor "facilities of public accomodation," fearing the worst - although that would be hard by comparison with the look-but-don't-touch raised turf at the Intercontinental.

At least the Intercontinental and Independence Wharf, however bad, present some type of cohesive vision for one's eyes to gaze at. I'd rather have a single cataract removed than multiple surgeries.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Sicilian said:
cheap adornments (i.e. facadectomy base...
Click to expand...

Seriously? I understand the others you listed, but how is using the original facade of the buildings a "cheap adornment"?
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Sicilian, to clarify, I think it's far from a perfect building, but greatness does not mean flawlessness. The fuglier elements still add interest to the skyline, in my opinon.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) that elsewhere you nominated 111 Huntington as an awful building. It's good to see consistency in your thinking - with that building I also agree the crown is truly fugly. But, it's sort of like keeping a shrunken head in your livingroom - bad taste, but makes a great conversation starter.

I'd rather Boston have interesting architecture than architecture that seeks perfection - a.k.a "safe" - when I hear "safe" I think Hotel Commonwealth.

I know you'll disagree
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

I disagree completely with you. The only bad angle really for this building is the waterfacing facade which is just a straight wall of glass windows. The rest of it looks great, and fits the skyline nicely.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Justin7 said:
Seriously? I understand the others you listed, but how is using the original facade of the buildings a "cheap adornment"?
Click to expand...

Not cheap in terms of cost, but a cheap nod to preservation while the building so clearly guts the brick and beam interior of the interior structure. Such jarring attempts at marrying old and new -- unlike FP3 for example, remind me only of how fantastic the original buildings were, quite dense in their own right and perfectly suitable for renovation at that site without the addition of the tower.

As someone said earlier, I'd have preferred that they demolished the whole original structure and rebuilt anew than hammered (and I mean hammered) out this compromise.

As for the rest of the comments, I completely respect and admire the differing opinions. My main state of concern is that Boston always seems to strive for the middle rather than valuing its property and calling for developments that reach that upper bar.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Sicilian said:
Not cheap in terms of cost, but a cheap nod to preservation while the building so clearly guts the brick and beam interior of the interior structure. Such jarring attempts at marrying old and new -- unlike FP3 for example, remind me only of how fantastic the original buildings were, quite dense in their own right and perfectly suitable for renovation at that site without the addition of the tower.

As someone said earlier, I'd have preferred that they demolished the whole original structure and rebuilt anew than hammered (and I mean hammered) out this compromise.
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned a few times before, this project reminds me a lot of 101 Arch St. Terrible tower crammed behind a shallow facadectomy. Had they demolished the original facade and just built some (post-) modern base to that tower, the experience of walking down that block of Summer Street would have been completely ruined. It is a less than ideal solution, but still better than the alternative.
 
Last edited:
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Yeah, I've got to say that when you imagine the alternative to the facadectomy base, you've got to be pretty happy with what we got. At the very least, the buildings keep some shred of texture along the Greenway - and combined with South Station, ends up making a semi-variegated streetwall.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Personally, I think the historic walls at the base will continue to serve as harsh reminders that there were perfectly adequate, large, adaptable and reusable wharf buildings on this wharf site that should never have been demolished. As for whether the current solution is better than a complete demolition, I can understand the varying positions.

^Shepard, you are correct about my comments about 111 Huntington. I don't generally like adornments or flourishes unless they are either practical or well suited to a particular location. In this regard, Notre Dame is fantastic. But there is a place for gargoyles, and there is a place for simplicity. To respect the historic facade at the base of Atlantic Wharf, I would have expected far fewer distractions above.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Would you have been more approving of the base, if the tower itself was of a higher quality architecture? I think that most people probably agree that the ornament is rather silly, and would rather a more modern tower - but how would that change your interpretation of the street level facade?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top